Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Farrington

Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory

Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Farrington

43 S.W. 946, 1 Indian Terr. 646, 1898 Indian Terr. LEXIS 87

CourtCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory

DecidedJanuary 8, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 43 S.W. 946 (Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Farrington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Farrington, 43 S.W. 946, 1 Indian Terr. 646, 1898 Indian Terr. LEXIS 87 (Conn. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, J.

(after stating the facts.) There is some conflict in the evidence in this case as to the distance the train was from the cow when the cow got upon the track and also as to the speed the train was running. The evidence of the plaintiff is that the train was 200 yards from the cow when she got upon the track, and the evidence of the engineer is that she was about 90 feet from the engine; that she got off the track, and he thought she would remain off, but that she came back on the track when the engine was about 50 feet from her. The evidence is that there was a slight curve, but it was upon the prairie, and the view unobstructed, and, as witness White testified, the “engineer could have seen a dog.” The evidence further is that the train made no effort to slacken.its speed, but, as it approached the cow, rather increased it, and the speed they were running is estimated from 10 miles per hour, by defendant’s witness, to [650]*65040 miles per hour, by plaintiff’s witnesses. The evidence, we think, properly went to the jury, and it is the province of the jury to say whether the circumstances are sufficient to warrant a finding that the cow was killed through the negligence of the railway company. The duty of railway companies to keep a lookout for stock on their tracks is no longer an open question. We think the charge of the court properly stated the law to the jury. The questions involved in this case are fully discussed in Railway Co. vs Ellis, 10 U. S. App. 640, 4 C. C. A. 454, and 54 Fed. 481; Railway Co. vs Washington, 4 U. S. App. 121, 1 C. C. A. 286, and 49 Fed. 347; Railway Co. vs Elledge, 4 U. S. App, 136, 1 C. C. A. 295, and 49 Fed. 356; Railway Co. vs Johnson, 10 U. S. App. 629, 4 C. C. A. 447, and 54 Fed. 474, and cases cited. We do not think there is any error, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

Negligence. Que~tfou for Jury. Springer, C. J., and Clayton and Thomas, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Townsend, J.

(after stating the facts.) There is some conflict in the evidence in this case as to the distance the train was from the cow when the cow got upon the track and also as to the speed the train was running. The evidence of the plaintiff is that the train was 200 yards from the cow when she got upon the track, and the evidence of the engineer is that she was about 90 feet from the engine; that she got off the track, and he thought she would remain off, but that she came back on the track when the engine was about 50 feet from her. The evidence is that there was a slight curve, but it was upon the prairie, and the view unobstructed, and, as witness White testified, the “engineer could have seen a dog.” The evidence further is that the train made no effort to slacken.its speed, but, as it approached the cow, rather increased it, and the speed they were running is estimated from 10 miles per hour, by defendant’s witness, to [650]*65040 miles per hour, by plaintiff’s witnesses. The evidence, we think, properly went to the jury, and it is the province of the jury to say whether the circumstances are sufficient to warrant a finding that the cow was killed through the negligence of the railway company. The duty of railway companies to keep a lookout for stock on their tracks is no longer an open question. We think the charge of the court properly stated the law to the jury. The questions involved in this case are fully discussed in Railway Co. vs Ellis, 10 U. S. App. 640, 4 C. C. A. 454, and 54 Fed. 481; Railway Co. vs Washington, 4 U. S. App. 121, 1 C. C. A. 286, and 49 Fed. 347; Railway Co. vs Elledge, 4 U. S. App, 136, 1 C. C. A. 295, and 49 Fed. 356; Railway Co. vs Johnson, 10 U. S. App. 629, 4 C. C. A. 447, and 54 Fed. 474, and cases cited. We do not think there is any error, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

Negligence. Que~tfou for Jury. Springer, C. J., and Clayton and Thomas, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 S.W. 946, 1 Indian Terr. 646, 1898 Indian Terr. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/missouri-kansas-texas-ry-co-v-farrington-ctappindterr-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack